On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 16:38, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Alan Mackie <aamac...@gmail.com > >: > >> This is why I suggested that the more practical solution would probably >> be to re-tag all existing admin_level=2 with admin_level=1 except for the >> EU ones as there are far fewer elements to be updated. Arbitrarily deciding >> that the EU gets its own admin_level not used by other top level entities >> breaks consistency with the rest of the world for the sake of local pride. >> > > > which other top level entities are you getting at? Why should we not tag > these with the same tag? > Other independent nations, this is why I suggested the promotion of all other admin_level=2 if we went this route. > Actually, admin_level=1 is already quite established, just with a > different key: heritage=1 (for UN heritage sites) > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/heritage=1#map > > > >> >> The EU is not the only entity that has arisen by agreement of neighbours >> to clump together, in that respect it is only unique in that it is the most >> populous one that happens to be doing so at this particular point in time. >> > > > you are of course free to add the past ones in OHM ;-) > > I think most of the surviving ones are already in OSM as admin_level=2. A more radical approach would be to drop admin_level entirely and rely on the way the relations are nested. However, I imagine the thought of processing that would reduce all but the most stoic of data consumers to tears, not to mention the fragility of mapping this way, the difficulty in doing so with OSM's typical philosophy of incremental improvement and the myriad of problems that results when borders are fuzzy and hard to pin down.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
